Betty's got the traditional view pretty well summed up. Once we've accepted a social engagement, we're committed to it, barring any emergency. "I changed my mind" isn't considered an emergency.

I agree that she does sum up the traditional view quite well, however, d@ting and general social engagements are different because they have different purposes. One could easily argue that were the OP were to keep her previously sincere, but no longer applicable commitment to the original date she agreed to, she would also be disingenuous because she has no intention of following through on the mutually-agreed upon goal of a "date".

The only way I can see to resolve this with utmost politeness is to inform the person that you are interested in/willing to stand by your commitment of social interaction at the previously specified time and place, but that you have changed the parameters to the pursuance of friendship, not romance. Frankly, I find this to be rather wasteful of time and effort for both parties unless there is a genuine desire for platonic friendship on both sides.

Theory vs. practicality. I don't think the OP did anything wrong. I think the OP's date was very mildly rude to express his annoyance in the way he did so due to the nature of the rel@tionship (or lack thereof) in question. However, I do not blame him for feeling that way, only expressing it to the OP.

Betty's got the traditional view pretty well summed up. Once we've accepted a social engagement, we're committed to it, barring any emergency. "I changed my mind" isn't considered an emergency.

I agree that she does sum up the traditional view quite well, however, d@ting and general social engagements are different because they have different purposes. One could easily argue that were the OP were to keep her previously sincere, but no longer applicable commitment to the original date she agreed to, she would also be disingenuous because she has no intention of following through on the mutually-agreed upon goal of a "date".

The only way I can see to resolve this with utmost politeness is to inform the person that you are interested in/willing to stand by your commitment of social interaction at the previously specified time and place, but that you have changed the parameters to the pursuance of friendship, not romance. Frankly, I find this to be rather wasteful of time and effort for both parties unless there is a genuine desire for platonic friendship on both sides.

Theory vs. practicality. I don't think the OP did anything wrong. I think the OP's date was very mildly rude to express his annoyance in the way he did so due to the nature of the rel@tionship (or lack thereof) in question. However, I do not blame him for feeling that way, only expressing it to the OP.

In my view, this viewpoint is actually one of the problems with dating and this sort of mentality seems to make dating a more high pressure success/failure activity than it needs to be. Can't people just have a nice dinner, learn a little more about each other, have some laughs, watch a movie ithout it being termed a failure because they don't want a third date?

On the other hand, I have never dated so I'm coming at this from a spectators point of view. But my friends who enjoy dating seem to take it one date at a time. Then I had another friend who, after reakng up with her boyfriend, called the last three years of her life a waste becaus they didn't get married.

Anyhow, that's getting a bit off topic. My views on the original question have already been stated.

In my view, this viewpoint is actually one of the problems with d@ting and this sort of mentality seems to make d@ting a more high pressure success/failure activity than it needs to be. Can't people just have a nice dinner, learn a little more about each other, have some laughs, watch a movie ithout it being termed a failure because they don't want a third date?

On the other hand, I have never dated so I'm coming at this from a spectators point of view. But my friends who enjoy d@ting seem to take it one date at a time. Then I had another friend who, after reakng up with her boyfriend, called the last three years of her life a waste becaus they didn't get married.

Anyhow, that's getting a bit off topic. My views on the original question have already been stated.

Certainly people can. Sometimes people go on a date or two and realise they are better suited as friends and continue along that path. But if you know the other person is interested in romance and you know that you are only interested in friendship, isn't it better to either reset the parameters or discontinue the relationship? And sometimes, people aren't suited to be in any type of relationship.

I haven't dated much myself, my DH was my second long term relationship. But, I was the person broken up with in my previous relationship and there was nothing polite, kind, or mutual about it even though he was not purposefully cruel. He still had the right to break up with me on the spot, even though he broke off previous plans made to do so. Thats the nature of romance - when the purpose disapears, so do the plans. In a friendship its easy enough just to decline future invitations and make none of your own. Romantic relationships have too many other, more important variables. I'm glad he did break it off with me- imagine if he strung me along never intending anything but friendship. I would never have met much less romanced DH.

Betty's got the traditional view pretty well summed up. Once we've accepted a social engagement, we're committed to it, barring any emergency. "I changed my mind" isn't considered an emergency.

I agree that she does sum up the traditional view quite well, however, d@ting and general social engagements are different because they have different purposes. One could easily argue that were the OP were to keep her previously sincere, but no longer applicable commitment to the original date she agreed to, she would also be disingenuous because she has no intention of following through on the mutually-agreed upon goal of a "date".

The only way I can see to resolve this with utmost politeness is to inform the person that you are interested in/willing to stand by your commitment of social interaction at the previously specified time and place, but that you have changed the parameters to the pursuance of friendship, not romance. Frankly, I find this to be rather wasteful of time and effort for both parties unless there is a genuine desire for platonic friendship on both sides.

Theory vs. practicality. I don't think the OP did anything wrong. I think the OP's date was very mildly rude to express his annoyance in the way he did so due to the nature of the rel@tionship (or lack thereof) in question. However, I do not blame him for feeling that way, only expressing it to the OP.

Still disingenuous

The OP doesn't appear to want to even a friendship with this man, so she'd have to say "I really have no interest in pursuing this any further. So, what time on Friday?"

The OP doesn't appear to want to even a friendship with this man, so she'd have to say "I really have no interest in pursuing this any further. So, what time on Friday?"

You are absolutely correct! I forgot about that aspect, which increases my stance that stopping the plans when the purpose no longer applies minimises the problim of sincerity. Thanks for pointing that out - I hate it when I miss something.

The OP doesn't appear to want to even a friendship with this man, so she'd have to say "I really have no interest in pursuing this any further. So, what time on Friday?"

You are absolutely correct! I forgot about that aspect, which increases my stance that stopping the plans when the purpose no longer applies minimises the problim of sincerity. Thanks for pointing that out - I hate it when I miss something.

BettyDraper

Betty's got the traditional view pretty well summed up. Once we've accepted a social engagement, we're committed to it, barring any emergency. "I changed my mind" isn't considered an emergency.

I agree that she does sum up the traditional view quite well, however, d@ting and general social engagements are different because they have different purposes. One could easily argue that were the OP were to keep her previously sincere, but no longer applicable commitment to the original date she agreed to, she would also be disingenuous because she has no intention of following through on the mutually-agreed upon goal of a "date".

The only way I can see to resolve this with utmost politeness is to inform the person that you are interested in/willing to stand by your commitment of social interaction at the previously specified time and place, but that you have changed the parameters to the pursuance of friendship, not romance. Frankly, I find this to be rather wasteful of time and effort for both parties unless there is a genuine desire for platonic friendship on both sides.

Theory vs. practicality. I don't think the OP did anything wrong. I think the OP's date was very mildly rude to express his annoyance in the way he did so due to the nature of the rel@tionship (or lack thereof) in question. However, I do not blame him for feeling that way, only expressing it to the OP.

For purposes of etiquette, social events aren't segregated into "might lead to something romantic" and "other." People are presumed to be interested in friendship, intellectual stimulation, companionship or an escort to a particular event, etc. and to be pleasantly surprised if anything further develops. (Again, I fully realize that some people's dating conventions may not adhere to the above but this isn't a dating-advice forum, it's an etiquette forum.)

Maybe the guy in the OP situation recognized the lack of sparks too but figured that even if the poster wouldn't make a life partner, she still might be fun to have dinner with, to see a particular movie with or attend the bowling tourney with. He's looking forward to Event X and planning his time accordingly and suddenly finds out the appointment is unilaterally canceled. Etiquette frowns on the person doing the canceling unless she is rehearsing "Good evening, Mrs. Obama, thank you so much for including me tonight," -- or if she or one of her loved ones is in the ER or the morgue.

Once made, a social appointment may not be canceled at whim. Imagine if you and your spouse have dinner with another couple, make specific plans to do so again and then when alone say to one another "I didn't really like them all that much and I can't see us all becoming firm friends. What say we cancel out on Friday night?" Is this situation to be exempt from normal etiquette rules, too, because you don't anticipate continuing the relationship beyond the date you've already agreed upon? What about kids who accept party invitations and then confide to their parents that "Cindy is no fun, I don't want to be her friend any more and we aren't going to be in third grade together, anyway." Should mom say "OK, then, I'll just call her dad and cancel for you." Where does it end? There is a requirement in etiquette that, once we have agreed upon a social appointment, we are required to go and make the best of it, however dreaded the occasion may be.

Betty - I fully agree with your principles. I disagree with your application of them here which I fully admit is somewhat objective.

I liken it to - the OP's date is accepts an engagement with a friend on the (possibly unstated but obvious as it will take place in the late evening at a bar) condition that the friend has a babysitter and it will be just the two of them. The friend unfortunately has the babysitter cancel and tells me that she can't make it. The unspoken possibility is that we can still get together, but the parameters have changed now and friend's child will be accompanying us. If I decline, I have not broken a social obligation, and neither has friend. Friend was also not disingenuous, because she fully intended on having a babysitter at the time, but the situation has changed.

The OP accepted the social obligation under parameters that no longer apply through no control of her own (we cannot control he who we are attracted to/interested romantically in). She can certainly decide to go through with them, but since the parameter change means she is not interested in the same goal (romance) or even a related goal (friendship) it would be at least as disingenuous to do so, if not more, than if she cancelled or informed him of the parameter change and he decided to cancel.

I think the most polite thing is to keep the "date" but let the other person know that it is now a friendship-based interaction rather than a romantic one. In the interest of practicality for both parties, I think this step can be reasonably skipped, especially when the interest for even friendship is actually insincere.

Logged

"Its so fluffy I could DIE"

BettyDraper

Etiquette presumes it IS a friendship-based engagement unless or until, as Miss Manners would say, one finds oneself unexpectedly swept off one's feet over the raspberry torte and champagne. To baldly and preemptively state something like "I don't really feel attracted to you and I don't expect that to change by dessert" is superfluous and gauche.

It was not a commitment with stated conditions (like "If I find a babysitter" or "If I mull it over and still find myself lusting for you on Tuesday,") -- it was a firm appointment and thus one can't get an etiquette pass for dodging it.

For the record -- in the OP's position I probably wouldn't keep the date either. But I would not kid myself that I was doing the correct thing by canceling. I would live forever haunted by the knowledge that in the eyes of etiquette I had committed a scurvy and improper act.

I'm suggesting that the ideal "change" of plans would be something more like: "I'm just calling to confirm our plans for Friday, I had a nice time last week and I'd love to remain friends".

I also contend that when it comes to d@ting, (and in this case it might have even be arranged through an internet d@ting site - which mostly removes the polite fiction that this is plausibly about friendship for its own sake) that the above is impractical and usually of no benefit to either party although it certainly is polite.

ETA: I did love the smiley, I think we may be arguing a similar point except that I am trying to make a case for an exception to be adopted (if it hasn't been) and you are willing to take your 2-minute pass to e-hell for violating the rule. I would too, assuming I'm utterly wrong (which I may be) and an exception hasnt been or won't be adopted. I'll feel bad, but I'll still do it for my own sanity and in my opinion the other person's best interest.

Etiquette frowns on the person doing the canceling unless she is rehearsing "Good evening, Mrs. Obama, thank you so much for including me tonight,"

You know, I just don't get why an invitation to the White House gets a pass. We continually say "It's an invitation, not a summons", and this is a more or less free society, not a repressive regime with jack-booted thugs waiting to carry us off to a white tie dinner.

I don't really see this as anything different than 'something better came along'.

I don't get the White House thing either, but it is traditional. Anyone know if that's just a US thing or does it apply to an invitation from any head of state?

The basic issue of disagreement here seems to be if dating is governed by the same rules as other social engagements. For my part, I certainly hope that they do. What else is there? I guess there are specific situations that have other rules in effect (speed dating comes to mind), but that isn't the case here.

Etiquette frowns on the person doing the canceling unless she is rehearsing \"Good evening, Mrs. Obama, thank you so much for including me tonight,\"

You know, I just don\'t get why an invitation to the White House gets a pass. We continually say \"It\'s an invitation, not a summons\", and this is a more or less free society, not a repressive regime with jack-booted thugs waiting to carry us off to a white tie dinner.

I don\'t really see this as anything different than \'something better came along\'.

I think for the most part it is because unless you happen to be in politics being invited to the white house is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

I don't get the White House thing either, but it is traditional. Anyone know if that's just a US thing or does it apply to an invitation from any head of state?

The basic issue of disagreement here seems to be if d@ting is governed by the same rules as other social engagements. For my part, I certainly hope that they do. What else is there? I guess there are specific situations that have other rules in effect (speed d@ting comes to mind), but that isn't the case here.

I never took the White house example as literal but I would think it would apply to any head of State, just there are once in a lifetime opportunities that most people will and should understand if you have to cancel "normal" plans. I can't cancel movie plans with Sue because Mary is having a dinner party but if I win an all expense weekend in the Bahamas for 2. (not to me and somewhere else but yes really happened 4th runner up was offered the tickets 36 hours before the flight left) Sue should understand we can go to the movies next week. I wouldn't bow out of a wedding if I won a trip though except maybe if it was on the space shuttle.

Did a guy ever tell you he'd call but never did? It only happened to me once but it is a fairly common experience-and it hurts. They will get your hopes up, decide after one date that you are not worth the effort and then not have the guts to be honest about it. I realize that this is not what you did but it is probably how he views it.